Ongoing Litigation

Herron for Congress v. FEC

Herron for Congress v. FEC
Case Summary

On November 8, 2012, the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia rejected a challenge to the Commission’s dismissal of an administrative
complaint Herron for Congress filed in connection with its 2010 campaign. The
court ruled that it lacks jurisdiction to decide the merits of the case because
the claim is moot and because the plaintiff lacks standing.

Background

Herron for Congress was the principal campaign committee of Roy Herron, the
Democratic nominee in the 2010 race for the 8th District of Tennessee. On
September 29, 2010, the committee filed a complaint with the FEC, alleging that
the opposing campaign, Steven Fincher for Congress, had obtained a bank loan for
$250,000, but had reported it as a loan from Rep. Fincher to his committee. The
complaint further alleged that the loan had been obtained outside the ordinary
course of business as it had been insufficiently collateralized.

After investigation, Commission staff found that the loan was improperly
reported, but the Commission did not find reason to believe that the loan was
insufficiently collateralized, nor did it find reason to believe that the
Fincher Committee knowingly and willfully violated the Federal Election Campaign
Act. The Commission voted to close the file. Herron for Congress challenged that
decision by filing suit in the US District Court for the District of Columbia,
alleging that the Commission’s dismissal of its administrative complaint was
contrary to law.

Ruling

The court found that Herron for Congress’s claim was moot, as the election
during which it claimed to be wronged was in the past, its results irreversible,
and that it was thus “impossible for this or any court to grant meaningful
relief with respect to that election.” The court stated that it was up to Herron
for Congress to demonstrate that its claim was not moot by showing that the
controversy is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Because Mr. Herron
is only “considering” a future run for office, and because his campaign
committee could not therefore demonstrate that it will be subjected to the same
allegedly unlawful action again, the court concluded that Herron for Congress’s
case was moot.

The court further found that Herron for Congress lacks standing, as its claim
is based on nothing more than, “the generalized interest in having the FEC act
in a lawful manner.” This did not give rise to standing. Under any approach to
Herron for Congress’s case, the court concluded that it merely sought an opinion
that “might prove helpful to a campaign [Mr. Herron] has not yet decided to
launch,” and that the court thus lacks jurisdiction. The court denied Herron for
Congress’s motion for declaratory and injunction relief and granted the FEC’s
cross motion for summary judgment.